Theologians Think They’re Smarter Than Stephen Hawking

[jem]

You are such a liar. I present science, you make assertions...

If you wish to label my citing scientists as assertions.
Here are my 3 assertions.

Hawking says this about fine tunings of our universe.

1.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

".... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
---

2. Dawkins says this...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/mlD-CJPGt1A?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

3. Penrose says this.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Stu says mumbles b.s. about scientists who say our universe appears fine tuned do not understand density functions.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:

Do you also watch looney tunes and Mickey Mouse? They've been on even longer.

Actually, watching looney tunes and disney from a sociological perspective is very insightful.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

you still do not understand causation and you did not answer my question... where the hell does the gas go when temperatures cooled

so first answer my question...
Given the ice core data..

if temperature goes up... would you expect CO2 to be more concentrated or less.

if temperature goes down would you expect CO2 to be more concentrated or less.

So where does the gas go?

into the oceans

higher

less

oceans


Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if everything else stays constant, if CO2 levels increase what would be the most probable reaction?....

a) temperature remains the same

b) temperature decreases

c) temperature increases

 

[Free Thinker]

if jem follows his usual tactics he will seize on this article and proclaim"see, scientists state that global warming isnt a problem".



LAMONT, Okla. — For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.

Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk. Yet in recent years, the climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.

They acknowledge that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm. But they assert that clouds — which can either warm or cool the earth, depending on the type and location — will shift in such a way as to counter much of the expected temperature rise and preserve the equable climate on which civilization depends.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...-for-dissenters.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[CaptainObvious]

I'll give you some help. Figure out what is causing these changes in the Atlantic current and you'll figure out climate change. It's been happening for thousands of years. Hint, it ain't caused by man made carbon. Taken from a useful article:
Looking back over the oceanic records of the past 100,000 years or so, it is striking how variable the currents must have been. Only the last 8,000 years, i.e. most of the Holocene, were a relatively stable period. Before then, throughout the last ice age, sudden jumps and jolts occur in the record roughly every 1,000 years. These are consistent between different sediment cores, and what is more, most of the spikes in the oceanic conditions correspond to synchronous climate shifts on land as recorded in the Greenland ice cap (Bond et al. 1993). Some cold climate episodes started with a temperature drop over Greenland of 5°C happening over a few decades or even less. The most plausible explanation for these sudden climatic changes are rapid shifts or breakdowns in the ocean currents of the North Atlantic. The exact timing and sequence of events and the ultimate causes are still under investigation, but there is widespread agreement that the 'conveyor belt' circulation of the Atlantic played an active and dynamic role in the climatic roller coaster of the past.

Quote from Free Thinker:

if jem follows his usual tactics he will seize on this article and proclaim"see, scientists state that global warming isnt a problem".



LAMONT, Okla. — For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.

Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk. Yet in recent years, the climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.

They acknowledge that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm. But they assert that clouds — which can either warm or cool the earth, depending on the type and location — will shift in such a way as to counter much of the expected temperature rise and preserve the equable climate on which civilization depends.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...-for-dissenters.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

You are such a liar. I present science, you make assertions...

Fourth case of unprovoked name calling by you, proving the lie yet again,
"Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you."

Quote from jem:

Stu says mumbles b.s. about scientists who say our universe appears fine tuned do not understand density functions.

Just as long as you keep on saying things I don't say and keep saying Hawking and Penrose are saying things they don't say, you'll remain just wrong and ignorant as you proved yourself wrong and untruthful when you said "Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you."

It obvious in this thread at least you don’t understand what anyone is saying.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I'll give you some help. Figure out what is causing these changes in the Atlantic current and you'll figure out climate change. It's been happening for thousands of years. Hint, it ain't caused by man made carbon. Taken from a useful article:
Looking back over the oceanic records of the past 100,000 years or so, it is striking how variable the currents must have been. Only the last 8,000 years, i.e. most of the Holocene, were a relatively stable period. Before then, throughout the last ice age, sudden jumps and jolts occur in the record roughly every 1,000 years. These are consistent between different sediment cores, and what is more, most of the spikes in the oceanic conditions correspond to synchronous climate shifts on land as recorded in the Greenland ice cap (Bond et al. 1993). Some cold climate episodes started with a temperature drop over Greenland of 5°C happening over a few decades or even less. The most plausible explanation for these sudden climatic changes are rapid shifts or breakdowns in the ocean currents of the North Atlantic. The exact timing and sequence of events and the ultimate causes are still under investigation, but there is widespread agreement that the 'conveyor belt' circulation of the Atlantic played an active and dynamic role in the climatic roller coaster of the past.

i guess this must mean that you are smarter than the "97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk"since you thought of something they must have missed.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Free Thinker:

i guess this must mean that you are smarter than the "97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk"since you thought of something they must have missed.

Point put to me where I wrote it's not a serious risk. You're selective reading prevents you from seeing the truth. Political bias does that sort of thing.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Fourth case of unprovoked name calling by you, proving the lie yet again,
"Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you."





Just as long as you keep on saying things I don't say and keep saying Hawking and Penrose are saying things they don't say, you'll remain just wrong and ignorant as you proved yourself wrong and untruthful when you said "Stu - if you were not abusive first.. I would not be abusive towards you."

It obvious in this thread at least you don’t understand what anyone is saying.

I note that leftist trolls and fools frequently find statements of fact abusive.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Free Thinker:

if jem follows his usual tactics he will seize on this article and proclaim"see, scientists state that global warming isnt a problem".



LAMONT, Okla. — For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.

Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk. Yet in recent years, the climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.

They acknowledge that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm. But they assert that clouds — which can either warm or cool the earth, depending on the type and location — will shift in such a way as to counter much of the expected temperature rise and preserve the equable climate on which civilization depends.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...-for-dissenters.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

It would be good if they're very right however that would still not prevent the oceans from becoming acidified.